It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking - FusionGPS was a subcontractor for the FBI - ran 702 inquiries w/out FISA

page: 8
110
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Justoneman

One of the ramifications of the "Trump Operation" spying scheme getting exposed is normal people asking this simple question,

"If it was done to Trump and his campaign, where, when and whom was it used against in other past matters?"

I believe certain partisan types will be unwittingly used by deep state actors to do their utmost to make sure general public does not gain the awareness to ask the question above.




Very good points. The 'fix' and the 'insurance against trump winning' are probably not the 1st time. Fixing the primary by the D's and trying to ensure that DJT loses by a federal agency is DISGUSTING!! The three letter agencies have usurped our will and now we have solid proof.
edit on 15-1-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried and Trump won the popular vote in every single state he carried. Trump carried more states than Clinton and because of that he carried more electoral votes than Clinton.

Populous states do not get to disenfranchise voters from other states.

We use an electoral college system and not a national popular vote.

You guys seriously need to understand how our system works and accept the fact the Democrats rigged a primary so Clinton could run. Given that fact, that the DNC conspired to rig the primary for Clinton, the left has no right to lecture anyone on what the people want.


Exactly why I don't waste my time arguing the popular vote defense the Alt-Left loves to spew....Anyone who approves of the activities the DNC undertook to rig the primaries is not a true American. If you approve of this behavior you are no better then the Russian communists you accuse Trump of colluding with.

Sad really....



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Or.......

How Obamas healthcare legislation was narrowly passed

AND

Later ruled constitutional against bulk of Roberts written decision.

The current revelations makes on wonder!

Certainly explains the government protection racket going on so long covering obvious bad actors.

I think just tip of the iceberg is showing.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

The founders read and knew Greek history and knew results of pure "mob" rule democracy would quickly destroy the nation they were setting up.

Hence the representative republic form and protections in constitution to prevent more populous areas dictating their will over less populous areas by use of majority vote.

Genius they were,

I wholeheartedly agree, anyone citing popular vote as justifications for their actions is demostrating something besides a belief in founders and U.S. Constitution.

There's a whole lot of terms and labels for that behavior, one that's not is patriot.




posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Justoneman

Or.......

How Obamas healthcare legislation was narrowly passed

AND

Later ruled constitutional against bulk of Roberts written decision.

The current revelations makes on wonder!

Certainly explains the government protection racket going on so long covering obvious bad actors.

I think just tip of the iceberg is showing.



Spot on! These goons are splitting off from the main ice flow allowing us to see them more clearly.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Has anyone done an independent verification that the supposed Top Secret FISA Court finding is real? I cannot find it for example, on the FISC website or the website for the Office of Director of National Intelligence. I can't find any reference in any of the discussion as to who exactly is supposed to have released it and where.

Moreover, there is a strange coincidence that this exact same issue was discussed in a FISA Court finding back in 2013. See, for example, a discussion by attorney Carrie Cordero that can be read in full at:

www.lawfareblog.com...

In her article, she summarizes that the Court document discusses:

"A signals intelligence agency that brought an embarrassing and significant technical error to the Court’s attention. No sugar-coating here: there was a major disconnect between one subset of the technical implementation and the manner in which the implementation had been previously reported to the Court. As Ben and Lauren explain here, this called into question the Court’s prior determinations that the NSA’s targeting and minimization procedures were reasonable under the FISA and the Fourth Amendment.

An 80-page opinion from the then-Presiding Judge of the FISA Court, a former federal prosecutor, that takes the government to task for implementing a collection in a way that was different from what the government had originally told the Court.

A Court that fully understood the issues at play, including the application of the technology involved in NSA’s “upstream” collection to the FISA and the Constitution.

A Court that had the authority, ability and willingness to the direct the government to correct its actions. A Court that told the government that it could do better, and insisted that it do so.

A level of confidence that existed between the government and the Court, in that the Court granted the government’s requests to delay its judgment while the government fully investigated the problem and developed information that would help the Court’s consideration of the issues. This confidence enabled important national security surveillance to continue, under the Court’s supervision, while the government gathered data to present to the Court.

A Congress that was fully informed, in accordance with the FISA statute, through copies of the relevant opinions and the underlying written record, briefings by senior officials and additional detailed reports.
An internal government compliance and oversight program that likely involved thousands of man hours over a period of months to uncover the nature of the compliance problem and bring that information to the Court.

A solution reached, in under eight weeks from the Court’s October 3, 2011 opinion, that tightened retention and handling procedures and enabled the Court to find the refined collection activities and procedures compliant with FISA and the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

The full text of the 2013 Court document can be viewed here:

lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com...

The essence of the 85 page 2013 document (which was released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) is virtually the same as the supposed Top Secret document discussed in the OP and released within the last few days. The new document is not a word-for-word copy of the 2013 document (the dates are different, for example) but the story line is basically the same.

Interestingly enough, the security markings on the 2013 document (which is known to be authentic) differ from those on the recent document. They are: TOP SECRET//COMINT//ORCON,NOFORN (on the old document) compared to TOP SECRET/SI/ORCON/NOFORN (on the new document). The 2013 classification scheme is formally correct; Top Secret is the highest classification, COMINT is a compartment of Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). You have to have a TS clearance to be eligible for access to an SCI compartment. ORCON (Originator Controlled) and NOFORN (No Release to Foreign Nationals) are not classification levels, as such, they are caveats that describe who has the authority to declassify the material and who is not allowed to see it. These 3 different kinds of descriptors are all delimited from each other by different delimiters (double backslashes and commas). The classification scheme in the recently released document seems to me to be erroneous; SI is not a compartment, as far as I know, and all of the different descriptors are all separated by the same delimiters (commas), implying that they are all of the same importance (which they're not)

Could the genuine document from 2013 have been used as a template by someone to produce a recent disinformation document?

This is an honest question. Has someone already figured this out, one way or the other, and I just haven't heard about it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Quoted for posterity's sake. It's interesting no one, OP included, has addressed the obvious discrepancies in the source document here.

Just links to tabloid right wing sites in an effort to tie everything together. This may be a completely fake document.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: Xcathdra

Has anyone done an independent verification that the supposed Top Secret FISA Court finding is real? I cannot find it for example, on the FISC website or the website for the Office of Director of National Intelligence. I can't find any reference in any of the discussion as to who exactly is supposed to have released it and where.

Moreover, there is a strange coincidence that this exact same issue was discussed in a FISA Court finding back in 2013. See, for example, a discussion by attorney Carrie Cordero that can be read in full at:

www.lawfareblog.com...

In her article, she summarizes that the Court document discusses:

"A signals intelligence agency that brought an embarrassing and significant technical error to the Court’s attention. No sugar-coating here: there was a major disconnect between one subset of the technical implementation and the manner in which the implementation had been previously reported to the Court. As Ben and Lauren explain here, this called into question the Court’s prior determinations that the NSA’s targeting and minimization procedures were reasonable under the FISA and the Fourth Amendment.

An 80-page opinion from the then-Presiding Judge of the FISA Court, a former federal prosecutor, that takes the government to task for implementing a collection in a way that was different from what the government had originally told the Court.

A Court that fully understood the issues at play, including the application of the technology involved in NSA’s “upstream” collection to the FISA and the Constitution.

A Court that had the authority, ability and willingness to the direct the government to correct its actions. A Court that told the government that it could do better, and insisted that it do so.

A level of confidence that existed between the government and the Court, in that the Court granted the government’s requests to delay its judgment while the government fully investigated the problem and developed information that would help the Court’s consideration of the issues. This confidence enabled important national security surveillance to continue, under the Court’s supervision, while the government gathered data to present to the Court.

A Congress that was fully informed, in accordance with the FISA statute, through copies of the relevant opinions and the underlying written record, briefings by senior officials and additional detailed reports.
An internal government compliance and oversight program that likely involved thousands of man hours over a period of months to uncover the nature of the compliance problem and bring that information to the Court.

A solution reached, in under eight weeks from the Court’s October 3, 2011 opinion, that tightened retention and handling procedures and enabled the Court to find the refined collection activities and procedures compliant with FISA and the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

The full text of the 2013 Court document can be viewed here:

lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com...

The essence of the 85 page 2013 document (which was released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) is virtually the same as the supposed Top Secret document discussed in the OP and released within the last few days. The new document is not a word-for-word copy of the 2013 document (the dates are different, for example) but the story line is basically the same.

Interestingly enough, the security markings on the 2013 document (which is known to be authentic) differ from those on the recent document. They are: TOP SECRET//COMINT//ORCON,NOFORN (on the old document) compared to TOP SECRET/SI/ORCON/NOFORN (on the new document). The 2013 classification scheme is formally correct; Top Secret is the highest classification, COMINT is a compartment of Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). You have to have a TS clearance to be eligible for access to an SCI compartment. ORCON (Originator Controlled) and NOFORN (No Release to Foreign Nationals) are not classification levels, as such, they are caveats that describe who has the authority to declassify the material and who is not allowed to see it. These 3 different kinds of descriptors are all delimited from each other by different delimiters (double backslashes and commas). The classification scheme in the recently released document seems to me to be erroneous; SI is not a compartment, as far as I know, and all of the different descriptors are all separated by the same delimiters (commas), implying that they are all of the same importance (which they're not)

Could the genuine document from 2013 have been used as a template by someone to produce a recent disinformation document?

This is an honest question. Has someone already figured this out, one way or the other, and I just haven't heard about it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Quoted for posterity's sake. It's interesting no one, OP included, has addressed the obvious discrepancies in the source document here.

Just links to tabloid right wing sites in an effort to tie everything together. This may be a completely fake document.


So I hope you realize you're using Comeys buddy Benjamin Wittes as your source for attempting to discredit the document.


Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and founder of the popular Lawfare blog, admitted that he was the principal source for a story in The New York Times this Friday.
Read more: forward.com...


Yeah that Benjamin Wittes fellow who is a part of this saga of miscreant activity.

And you have nerve trying to blythly pass the information along without mentioning the sources part in overall picture.

This is how fake news is generated right here folks.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hey maybe you can link where you think Simpson walked back his WH insider comments because he certainly has not.
And maybe stick to verifiable facts and not satire fantasy websites as your source. (And then look down on me because I won't fall for the stuff you do.)
I never will.


Right...

Fusion GPS Walks Back Its Claim FBI Had ‘Source’ Inside Trump Campaign

After a series of excuses, Dianne Feinstein finally admitted she released the transcript to the public at the request of Fusion GPS’s lawyers.

Shortly after the transcript hit the public, everyone was talking about how Christopher Steele was told the FBI had a ‘source’ inside the Trump campaign feeding the FBI agents information.

According to the transcript, this ‘internal source’ confirmed the claims in the dossier to the FBI thus giving the 35 page document more credibility. Everyone assumed this ‘source’ was Trump campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos since he was the star in the December 30th New York Times article.

Fusion GPS is now walking back the claim the FBI had an ‘internal source’, claiming they “mischaracterized” the source. The ‘source’ was apparently an Australian diplomat.


As for fantasy websites I linked to the 80+ page report in question and cited which page the info came from. I am assuming you, again, failed to read the posts or just ignored it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

If you are not going to bother to keep up with what is going on then please stop commenting.

ETA -
* - Fusion GPS, firm behind disputed Russia dossier, retracts its claim of FBI mole in Trump camp


Here is the other lie from FusionGPS
* - Lawyer: 'Someone's already been killed' as a result of the Trump dossier
edit on 15-1-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

True to form: whatever they accuse, is something they have done.

Until we get some closure on Seth Rich, im just assuming that Hillary had a hand in it.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Here's a little weirdness I just came across:


Federal judge Amy Berman Jackson wants to know why Mueller target Richard W. Gates, III appears to have participated via video feed in a fundraiser organized by Jack Burkman. The fundraiser appears to have been open to journalists, the court noted today, and the video of Gates’ participation remains available on social media platforms. The court is demanding that Gates explain why the video should not be considered a direct violation of a gag order the judge issued earlier in the prosecution.


Burkman, as you may remember, is he spokesperson for the Rich family.

What is a democrat crisis manager (my bad, that was Bauman, this is Burkman) a republican lobbyist doing raising money for the legal defense of someone Mueller is investigating and has under indictment?
edit on 15-1-2018 by jadedANDcynical because: wrong spokesperson. anyone find it strange that the Richfmaily has 2 spokes people form opposite 'sides' of the political aisle who are both fairly powerful within their repsecitve areas of operation?



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Yeah ok. Russian hackers were clever and skilled enough to hack their way into an encrypted and secured network but were stupid enough to leave their fingerprints all over it?

When you say "Russian hackers" that's code for "DNC actors" right?

lol...



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Xcathdra

The FBI should be disbanded. I see nothing to trust from them.

Thugs with no honor or integrity.

I dont like the FBI and now will celebrate when bad things happen to them.

They are not one of us. They live above the law. So why do we place ourselves below them?

Screw the law I guess. They work for criminals, like the scum bag scrubs they are.

Go fetch Effers. I think your owners want some coffee or something.



A star I gave but with the caveat that there are a lot of real good agents in the FBI that need to be kept. I would take off the top several layers, bring in an experienced lawman with a strong reputation and reset the bar.

ETA

The black community has a lot of folks who believe the FBI or CIA killed MLK Jr. The city of Memphis TN did a trial using the evidence and found the purported gunman while probably was in the neighborhood, was deemed innocent of the murder.

www.cbsnews.com...


I will ALWAYS think G H W Bush was behind who killed JFK. Oswald was a patsy.


He denied it but he was there

www.wnd.com...

www.jfkmurdersolved.com...




Jim Garrison killed JFK. Because, why not?



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: DJW001

Yeah ok. Russian hackers were clever and skilled enough to hack their way into an encrypted and secured network but were stupid enough to leave their fingerprints all over it?

When you say "Russian hackers" that's code for "DNC actors" right?

lol...



Yeah but don't forget, one of the pieces of evidence it was the Russians was the breaches occurred during business hours in Moscow... because everyone knows hackers only work 9-5 right? The fact they even included that in their report tells me their evidence was embarrassingly weak.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried and Trump won the popular vote in every single state he carried. Trump carried more states than Clinton and because of that he carried more electoral votes than Clinton.

Populous states do not get to disenfranchise voters from other states.

We use an electoral college system and not a national popular vote.

You guys seriously need to understand how our system works and accept the fact the Democrats rigged a primary so Clinton could run. Given that fact, that the DNC conspired to rig the primary for Clinton, the left has no right to lecture anyone on what the people want.


Exactly why I don't waste my time arguing the popular vote defense the Alt-Left loves to spew....Anyone who approves of the activities the DNC undertook to rig the primaries is not a true American. If you approve of this behavior you are no better then the Russian communists you accuse Trump of colluding with.

Sad really....


Don't forget the 6 coinflip wins in a row in Iowa.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

One of my favorites. I literally laughed out loud when I read that one.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   
NM
edit on 15-1-2018 by Outlier13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried and Trump won the popular vote in every single state he carried. Trump carried more states than Clinton and because of that he carried more electoral votes than Clinton.

Populous states do not get to disenfranchise voters from other states.

We use an electoral college system and not a national popular vote.

You guys seriously need to understand how our system works and accept the fact the Democrats rigged a primary so Clinton could run. Given that fact, that the DNC conspired to rig the primary for Clinton, the left has no right to lecture anyone on what the people want.


Exactly why I don't waste my time arguing the popular vote defense the Alt-Left loves to spew....Anyone who approves of the activities the DNC undertook to rig the primaries is not a true American. If you approve of this behavior you are no better then the Russian communists you accuse Trump of colluding with.

Sad really....


Don't forget the 6 coinflip wins in a row in Iowa.


I completely forgot about this. Further down in the article is this gem...

Order of operations to determining Iowa winners:
1. Tallied votes
2. Coin toss
3. Rock paper scissors
4. Staring contest

— Aaron Levie (@levie) February 2, 2016

edit on 15-1-2018 by Outlier13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Xcathdra

The FBI should be disbanded. I see nothing to trust from them.

Thugs with no honor or integrity.

I dont like the FBI and now will celebrate when bad things happen to them.

They are not one of us. They live above the law. So why do we place ourselves below them?

Screw the law I guess. They work for criminals, like the scum bag scrubs they are.

Go fetch Effers. I think your owners want some coffee or something.



A star I gave but with the caveat that there are a lot of real good agents in the FBI that need to be kept. I would take off the top several layers, bring in an experienced lawman with a strong reputation and reset the bar.

ETA

The black community has a lot of folks who believe the FBI or CIA killed MLK Jr. The city of Memphis TN did a trial using the evidence and found the purported gunman while probably was in the neighborhood, was deemed innocent of the murder.

www.cbsnews.com...


I will ALWAYS think G H W Bush was behind who killed JFK. Oswald was a patsy.


He denied it but he was there

www.wnd.com...

www.jfkmurdersolved.com...




Jim Garrison killed JFK. Because, why not?


I know the man's story and he was THE ONE to share the proof that I believe will prove it all was the CIA and maybe even the DOD....



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried and Trump won the popular vote in every single state he carried. Trump carried more states than Clinton and because of that he carried more electoral votes than Clinton.

Populous states do not get to disenfranchise voters from other states.

We use an electoral college system and not a national popular vote.

You guys seriously need to understand how our system works and accept the fact the Democrats rigged a primary so Clinton could run. Given that fact, that the DNC conspired to rig the primary for Clinton, the left has no right to lecture anyone on what the people want.


Exactly why I don't waste my time arguing the popular vote defense the Alt-Left loves to spew....Anyone who approves of the activities the DNC undertook to rig the primaries is not a true American. If you approve of this behavior you are no better then the Russian communists you accuse Trump of colluding with.

Sad really....


Don't forget the 6 coinflip wins in a row in Iowa.


Oh yea! Poor Bernie fans... They got HOSED!!



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Ya know I could be wrong on this point -

Here is the other lie from FusionGPS
* - Lawyer: 'Someone's already been killed' as a result of the Trump dossier

Seth Rich was murdered and given the DNC was a leak and not a hack it would have undermined the Russia bs being pushed. Not to mention the John Podesta email discussing a leak and making an example out of them.



new topics

top topics



 
110
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join